any mention in the media of Reagan's Afghanistan blowback?

[Cocoa]

You'd think that since we're in the middle of this War On Terror, the news people would find it interesting to point out Reagan's role in Afghanistan.

But I'm not seeing it.

Like in this article, it might have been a good place to mention a possible downside to the kind of simplistic thinking in foreign policy that the Reagan fans are so proud of.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5151912/

The foreign policy contrast persists today: the Democrats, the party of nuance; the Republicans, the party of bold, simple (Democrats would say “simplistic”) statements.

When asked in his debate with Reagan about using military force to counter Soviet expansion in Afghanistan, Carter said as president he'd learned “there are no simple answers to complicated questions.”
Reagan did have a simple answer: He called the Soviet Union “the focus of evil in the modern world.”

[LittleApple81]

1. No way Jose. It is all positive. RR is the saviour. etc. etc.

But I remember the reports about how we used Afghanistan to bleed the Russians and then when the Taliban (horrible fanatics) took possession of the country we did not give a hoot.
Funny that we have got involved in the same type of situation.
For those who have read "Charlie Wilson's War" could you provide further info on this?

[Cocoa]

2. it's funny, they DO mention Reagan defeating the commies in Afghanistan

but very very little about the cost.

I think it would be a valid question to ask, maybe Afghanistan would have been better off under the Soviets, and the world would have been better off.

Same question, but zero chance of being asked, about Nicaragua.